The search for epistemological objectivity is only possible through an inter-subjective linguistic platform, while the appeal to revelation for ethical guidance results in the central legal concept of consensus. MAQASID AL FALASIFA PDF DRIVERIn so far as meaning therefore expresses belief it, rather than knowledge, becomes the driver of action. Intensional logic provides us with a reflective capacity which is detached from the world it observes, and where meaning becomes contextual. Ġazālī’s systematicity rests on the idea of the Aristotelian syllogism, presented as an intensional logic described as a primordial human heuristic capacity, quite separate from the speculative reason of the theologian. In the present article, I argue that, in his own time, and despite himself, al-Ghazālī was a philosopher by addressing three questions pertaining to his method: 1) can al-Ghazālī’s own rejection to being denominated philosopher be taken at face value? 2) do the methods of argumentation in works such as the Tahāfut justify labeling al-Ghazālī a philosopher, rather than merely, as is traditional, a theologian? 3) do al-Ghazālī’s critical engagement with the Aristotelian tradition and his own philosophical insights provide enough grounds for labeling him a philosopher?Īlthough al-Ġazālī saw himself essentially as a legal theorist, his ‘unifying’ perspective and his systematic search for epistemological and ethical grounds for his legal theory, suggests he was a philosopher in the sense of the term current since the European Enlightenment. Thus, in his works like the Incoherence of the Philosophers written in refutation of Avicenna, al-Ghazālī draws repeatedly and deeply on Aristotelian methodological analysis as understood in the Islamic milieu to undermine philosophically what he regards as inadequacies in the philosophers’ reasoning on matters concerning religion. However, what al-Ghazālī says and does are two different things. The greatest advocate of the view that al-Ghazālī is not a philosopher, is al-Ghazālī himself. What are the criteria for labeling a thinker a philosopher? Traditionally the Persian Muslim thinker al-Ghazālī has been denominated a theologian, in contrast, for example, to the innovative Aristotelian philosopher Ibn Sina or Avicenna. He does not need to show that their teachings are wrong, he only needs to show that they are not supported by demonstrative arguments. In the twenty discussions, he aims to show that “in metaphysics, they are unable to fulfill apodeixis (burhān) as they have set it out as a condition in their logic.” Thus, al-Ghazali made his “refutation” of the teachings of the falāsifa easy for himself. While he acknowledges that demonstration is possible in such sciences as geometry, for instance, he denies its possibility in metaphysics. In his Tahāfut, al-Ghazali aims at addressing this claim of apodeixis or demonstration (Arab. Yet, through their claim of apodictic or demonstrative knowledge in the field of metaphysics they have led people astray. Then, there are the philosophers themselves, or “leaders and the heads of the falāsifa,” who do believe in God, divine prophecy, and who abide by the religious law. Al-Ghazali identifies two kinds of adversaries, first a group of “vulgar followers” (“jamahir”) of the philosophers, who misunderstand their teachings, believe that the falāsifa offer an alternative to revealed religion, and use their teachings as an excuse to neglect religious duties. This paper offers a close reading and analysis of these introductions and concludes that there is indeed an overall strategy in the Tahāfut that is different from being a straightforward “refutation” (radd) or the philosopher’s (falāsifa) teachings. “muqaddima”) where al-Ghazali addresses a number of subjects. The book, however, also has five different “introductions” (singl. The book is divided into twenty discussions, most of which could stand by themselves and are not explicitly connected to an overall aim of the book. This paper tries to answer the question of whether there is an overall line of argument in al-Ghazali’s Tahāfut al-falāsifa.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |